Evidence Hub

Global prevalence of temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A. Alqutaibi, M. Alhammadi, H. Hamadallah, A. A. Altarjami, Omar Talal Malosh, A. Aloufi, L. M. Alkahtani, F. Alharbi et al.

Journal of Oral and Facial Pain and Headache, 2025

20,971 participants · 81 citations

Abstract

Background: Understanding the global prevalence and characteristics of a given health problem is essential for sizing its global and regional burden, estimating treatment needs, prioritizing healthcare services, and formulating targeted policies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the global prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) by gender, age, and continent, and the prevalence of specific categories such as myalgia, arthralgia, clicking/joint sounds, and limited mouth opening. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across three databases—PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science and supplemented by manual search up to June 2024. TMD diagnoses were based on the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) or Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Results: The database search yielded 15,628 records, from which 27 studies involving 20,971 subjects, including 6075 diagnosed with TMDs, were selected for final analysis. All meta-analyses utilized a random effects model. It is estimated that nearly a third of the global population (29.5%) suffers from TMDs. TMDs affected females at a significantly higher rate compared to males (36.7% versus 26.7%), representing a 1.75-fold greater likelihood among females. Prevalence among individuals under 18 years of age is 38.5%, compared to 34.1% in those 18 and older. TMDs are most prevalent in Europe (33.8%), followed by Asia (27.9%) and South America (27.3%);…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 20,971 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free